Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CasinoWebScripts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources do not prove this is a notable outfit. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CasinoWebScripts

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see nothing here in the way of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" demanded by WP:GNG. We have a press release, an advertisement, the company's own website, passing mention in a blog post, a directory entry/blog post, a blog post and a press release.

Finally, we have this blog post. Now, the author of the article, in an edit summary, notes that material from the same site is used in other articles, and that is correct. But the WP:WAX argument is invalid. The fact that gamingzion.com is cited elsewhere does not imply it is a reliable source. Indeed, by its own admission, it's a self-published venue with no kind of editorial oversight, as the term is conventionally understood.

Given the lack of usable sources, deletion seems the only valid option. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 minutes ago I saw a page on WikiPedia with only 2 notable sources. It had different category, but still. This page has 8 notable sources. Looks like Biruitorul has something against this page staying online on WikiPedia. I believe the page should stay as there are no reasons to remove it - Frederic77 ^Talk 07:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...I saw a page on WikiPedia with only 2 notable sources." That again neglects WP:WAX. smtchahal^(talk) 07:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, this software article lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.